How and why Al-Jazeera became garbage

I’m so pleased that I read Douglas Reeds book- The Controversy of Zion- otherwise I’d still be half asleep to just how the West operates. and NOT in the Wests Interest whatsoever!
Arab spring Western only in that- it was kicked off in Egypt by American jews….Talmudic Governments Reed wrote would be set up in place across the Middle East- book completed in 1956.
Apparently Poland for many, many decades used to be the home of The Talmudic Government than was shifted…Around

How and why Al-Jazeera became garbage

Thierry Meyssan of VoltaireNet chronicles Al-Jazeera’s slide from an alternative news network to lie factory, and shows that Mahmoud Jibril (the CIA asset and NATO-installed boss of Libya) was personally instrumental in Al-Jazeera’s plunge.

Mr. Meyssan also notes that today’s Western-sponsored “Arab Spring” is a replay of the 1920s “Arab Spring,” when England and France moved to seize the former Ottoman provinces and install puppet “parliamentary democracies” under Western control.

In the 1920s the West allied with secular groups against Islamists. Today the West allies with Islamists against secular governments – the same Islamists that the West claims to be fighting in its “war on terror.”

[Parenthetical SIDE NOTES are mine. ~ Heydrich]

============================================================

In the space of 15 years, Al-Jazeera established itself in the Arab world as an innovative news outlet, but today has dedicated itself to advancing the cause of bankers, and to overthrowing the governments of Libya and Syria by any means.

To understand how this came about, let’s briefly review Al-Jazeera’s history.

A DESIRE FOR DIALOGUE

Al-Jazeera was conceived by two French-Israeli personalities, the David and Jean Frydman brothers, after Jewish extremists assassinated their friend Yitzhak Rabin, who had tried to make genuine peace with Palestinians.

The Frydmans’ goal was to create a medium where Israelis and Arabs could freely exchange ideas and get to know each other.

In 1995, Orbit (a Saudi company) reached an agreement with the BBC to set up a news broadcast in Arabic, but the arrogant Saudis proved too tyrannical for British journalists, and the agreement was terminated. Most of Arabic BBC journalists lost their jobs, but the Frydman brothers quickly recruited them to launch Al-Jazeera.

The Frydman brothers wanted Al-Jazeera to come across as a purely Arab network outside of Saudi control. Hence in 1995 they approached the new emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, who had just overthrown his father in a palace coup. The new emir had seized the throne by falsely accusing his father of having pro-Iranian sentiments, and his lies were fabricated with the help of London and Washington, who in return were granted the Al Udeid Air Base west of Doha, Qatar.

The new emir had attended the elite Sandhurst Military Academy in England, and he undertook a massive expansion of Qatar’s military forces, which would later participate in the NATO’s genocidal attack on Libya. After taking power, he surrounded himself with Western bankers and weapons makers, and cultivated ties with Israel.

He even asked the Israeli Ministry of Commerce to open an office in Doha, Qatar, and became involved in the endless Israeli stalling tactic known as “peace talks” with the Palestinians. Washington started using Jews (e.g. Chase Untermeyer) as its ambassadors to Qatar.

Seeking to compete with the wealthy Saudi media, the Qatari emir received the Frydman brothers and agreed to let Doha be the headquarters of Al-Jazeera. The initial financing package included a down payment from the Frydman brothers, plus a $137 million loan from the Emir.

The Saudi monarchy retaliated by organizing a boycott of advertisers, in order to deny revenue to the new Al-Jazeera project.

Ultimately the Qatari emir himself became the financial backer of Al-Jazeera.

EXEMPLARY JOURNALISTS

The new network offered 24-hour alternative (i.e. non-Saudi) news and views that captivated Arab audiences. It presented opposing viewpoints, and let viewers decide the truth. [Faux News later copied this format, and developed its false slogan, “We report; you decide.”]

Al-Jazeera’s flagship program was a talk show titled “The Contrary View” with gadfly host Faisal al-Qassem, who comically exposed prejudices, and often poked fun at everyone except the emir himself.

Each Arab viewer found reason to praise some Al-Jazeera programs and condemn others, but overall the color and effervescence of Al-Jazeera prevailed over its drab, monotoned, Saudi-backed competitors, and changed the Arab audiovisual landscape.

However, after Mossad perpetrated 9-11, the emir of Qatar ran afoul of his Western and Israeli friends when Al-Jazeera reorters gave truthful accounts of the US military invasions. Al-Jazeera became the only channel to cover the NATO invasion of Afghanistan live from its office there.

This made the network even more popular among Arabs, and catapulted it from a controversial channel to a acclaimed media outlet.

In retaliation, George W. Bush bombed Al-Jazeera’s office in Kabul and in Baghdad, assassinating reporter Tareq Ayyoub (1 April 2003). Bush even threatened to bomb the network’s central studios in Doha, Qatar.

Bush also had Al-Jazeera reporter Tayseer Alouni (a Spanish national) arrested for interviewing Osama Bin Laden weeks after the 9-11 false-flag attack. (Alouni was the only foreign journalist to remain in Kabul during the US invasion, and broadcast bloody images to the world.) He was later released from prison, but went to Iraq to cover the US invasion, further infuriating President Bush. After the Israeli Mossad murdered 191 people and wounded 1,800 via the Madrid train bombings of 11 March 2004, Bush ordered the Spanish government to imprison Tayseer Alouni for seven years, beginning on 26 Sep 2005. [However a Spanish judge released him to home detention on 6 October 2006.]

Bush also had Al-Jazeera reporter Sami al-Hajj arrested in Pakistan (15 Dec 2001) and imprisoned without charge at Guantanamo Bay. [Over the next seven years, this latter item became so embarrassing for the USA that on 1 May 2008 Bush released Sami al-Hajj from Guantanamo, and had him flown to his native Sudan.]

THE 2005 REORGANIZATION

However, all good things come to an end. In 2006, after the death of David Frydman, the Qatari Emir decided to completely overhaul Al-Jazeera and create new channels, including Al-Jazeera English, at a time when the global market was changing, and many nations were getting satellite news channels. For the staff of Al-Jazeera English, the network hired journalists from ABC’s Nightline and other top news outfits.

With an audience now reaching 50 million viewers, the moment had come to drop the iconoclastic excitement of Al-Jazeera’s early period, and become like every other drab corporate media outlet, in order to be a player in the globalized banker-controlled world. However, this would not be easy, since Western media outlets resented the new competition, and falsely accused Al-Jazeera English of having “extremist” views.

To overcome this obstacle, Sheikh Hamad bin-Khalifa of Qatar called on JTrack, an international firm that had already provided him with personal training in communication skills.

JTrack is headed by Mahmoud Jibril, the CIA asset who is now the NATO-installed boss of Libya. (The “J” in “JTrack” stands for “Jibril”). JTrack specializes in training Arab and Southeast Asian leaders in the pro-banker language of Davos. Now the Qatari emir wanted Mr. Jibril to teach him how to project that image, so Al-Jazeera would please Western and Israeli bankers and warlords.

Throughout the world from Morocco to Singapore, Mahmoud Jibril’s JTrack has trained most of the political leaders backed by the USA and Israel (often mere hereditary puppets), turning them into “respectable” media personalities that smoothly deliver Western / Israeli propaganda.

However, when the West lifted its sanctions against Libya in 2006, Gaddafi’s new American friends asked him to bring in Mahmoud Jibril to be head of Libya’s National Economic Development Board. Thus, Mr. Jibril withdrew from Al-Jazeera before he had fully transformed the network into a propaganda outlet for those same bankers.

In Libya, Saif el-Islam (Gaddafi’s son) foolishly listened to his Western advisors and made Mahmoud Jibril both Minister of Planning and Director of the Development Authority, such that Jibril became the de facto number two man in the Libyan government, having authority over other ministers.

At breakneck speed, Jibril undertook the deregulation of Libya’s socialist economy, the privatization of Libya’s public enterprises, and the opening of Libyan society to Western bankers and debt-peddlers.

At the time that Mr. Jibril left Al-Jazeera in 2007, he convinced the Qatari emir to make Mr. Wadah Khanfar the network’s general director.

[SIDE NOTE: On 20 Sep 2011, Wadah Khanfar resigned from Al-Jazeera without explanation. It’s possible that he was embarrassed by the Wikileaks Palestinian Papers, which revealed his close relationship with the CIA, plus Western bankers and NATO warlords. There was also international pressure caused by Al-Jazeera’s support for the Bahrain government’s savage crushing of protesters.]

As operations head of Al-Jazeera (2007 – 2011) Wadah Khanfar strove to make the network ever-more pro-Israel and pro-West, while also appealing to radical Islamists who ally with Israel and the West if they think it will bring them power over their fellow Arabs. For example, Mr. Khanfar appointed Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as Al-Jazeera’s “spiritual counselor’ and star preacher. Mr. Qaradawi, the Al-Jazeera voice of the Muslim Brotherhood, supports wife-beating, female circumcision, death for homosexuals, Shiite-bashing, and so on.

[SIDE NOTE: Speaking of Islamist whores, the article below from Israel Today says that thousands of Arab Islamists and Al Qaeda-types have sent requests to Israeli government agencies, hoping to work for Mossad or the Israeli military. The Israeli government also gets requests from members of Arab parliaments, and Arab political movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. These are the same terrorists that Israel and the West claim to oppose. I will comment on this article at the end of this post.

Wadah Khanfar soon became the darling of Western bankers and warmongers, and frequently gave speeches at right-wing propaganda mills in Washington, such as the Middle East Institute, New America Foundation, and Council on Foreign Relations.

During his frequent visits to the USA he also met with senior officials and advisors at the White House, Pentagon, US Dept. of State, and U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency to learn what Israel and the USA wanted Al-Jazeera to show and say.

THE 2011 SHIFT

In early 2011, Mr. Wadah Khanfar used Al-Jazeera to support the “Arab spring” myth, according to which people throughout the Middle East and North Africa are seeking Western-style “democracies.” Al-Jazeera made no distinction between the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, and largely ignored the popular movements in Yemen and Bahrain, as they did not draw enough viewers.

At the highly influential TED 2011 conference (Technology Entertainment and Design, a kind of high-tech Bilderbergers meeting) Mr. Khanfar spoke of the “birth of a new era in the Arab world”; an era defined by “tolerance, democracy, and freedom.”

Of course the current “Arab Spring” farce is simply a replay of what the West did in the 1920s in order to seize the former Ottoman provinces and install puppet “parliamentary democracies” under Western control.

Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the Tunisian and Egyptian revolts was designed to steer and manage the protests so that whatever governments came out of the turmoil, they would remain pro-Western and pro-Israeli. In Egypt, Al-Jazeera harnessed the uprising in the interest of the Muslim Brotherhood, embodied by Al-Jazeera’s star preacher Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the mad Islamist noted above.

Outraged by Al-Jazeera’s editorial policy of all lies, all the time, many journalists, including Ghassan Ben Jeddou, walked out the network in April 2011, slamming the door behind them.

[SIDE NOTE: For example, during Russia’s annual May Day parade on 1 May 2011, Al-Jazeera planted a handful of Russian actors among a crowd of 40,000, and had them condemn Syria’s Assad. Al-Jazeera then edited the footage to make it seem that most Russians want Assad dead, which is totally false. Some scenes showed protesters throwing eggs and mayonnaise to express their hatred of Assad. In reality these were gay activists expressing their hatred of Moscow’s new mayor.]

WHO’S PULLING THE INFORMATION STRINGS?

Only when Al-Jazeera startted cheerleading NATO’s genocidal attack on Libya did the Arab masses wake up, and the masks begin to fall.

Through his JTrack training activities, Mahmoud Jibril (the new NATO-installed boss of Libya) established personal relationships with almost all Arab and Southeast Asian leaders. JTrack had offices in Bahrain and Singapore.

Mr. Jibril also created trading companies, including one that dealt in Malaysian and Australian timber, established in partnership with his close friend, the ultra-militant Jew warmonger, Bernard-Henri Levy of France.

Mahmoud Jibril started his university studies in Cairo, and later continued his studies in the United States, where he adoted the pro-banker “free market” views that he later used to dismantle Gaddafi’s populist policies.

Also, Mr. Jibril joined the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, and convinced the Qatari emir to install the militant Islamist Yusuf al-Qaradawi (of the Muslim Brotherhood) as Al-Jazeera’s star preacher.

In cheerleading NATO attack on Libya, Al-Jazeera started teaching the Western media how propaganda should be done. In most cases the Western media has simply repeated lies told by Al-Jazeera.

The network has gone to great lengths to hide the anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist aspect of the Arab revolutions, and hand picks actors in each country that advance pro-Western lies.

Naturally Al-Jazeera supports the murderous king of Bahrain, himself a student of Mahmoud Jibril. Meanwhile Al-Jazeera’s “spiritual counselor” Sheikh al-Qaradawi called for a Jihad against Gaddafi and Assad, falsely accusing them of murdering their own people.

With Mr Jibril installed by NATO as Libya’s new boss, the height of duplicity was reached when Al-Jazeera built a replica of the Tripoli’s Green Square and Bab-el-Azizia compound in the Al-Jazeera studios in Doha, Qatar. Al-Jazeera concocted footage of NATO-backed Islamist “revolutionaries” entering Tripoli, and broadcast it on Al-Jazeera, Sky News, and other networks to confuse and terrify the people of Tripoli.

What was happening? Had the NATO rats actually invaded? Amid this confusion, NATO began a massive new bombardment and helicopter-strafing of Tripoli civilians, thereby opening the way for “rebels” from Misrata to enter Tripoli three days later, commanded by NATO and Qatari officers.

Al-Jazeera also falsely claimed that the NATO rats had captured Gaddafi’s son Saif el-Islam, plus several of his other sons, and that the “rebels” were preparing them for shipment to the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. To counter these Al-Jazeera lies, Saif el-Islam presented himself to journalists holed up at the Rixos Hotel, and lead them to the real Bal el-Azizia square in Tripoli, thousands of miles away from the fake Al-Jazeera mockup in Qatar.

When Arabic-language channel France24 questioned Mustafa Jalil about the lies spread by him and Al-Jazeera, Mustafa Jalil (the NATO-installed head of the NTC) boasted that the lies were a war stratagem, and he was delighted that they had accelerated the fall of Tripoli.

WHAT FUTURE FOR AL-JAZEERA?

The conversion of Al-Jazeera into an Israeli / Western / Gulf Arab propaganda tool was achieved with the leadership of the emir of Qatar. The six emirates of the Gulf Cooperation Council were the first to call for a NATO attack, and Qatar was the first among them to join the NATO war council known as the “Libyan Contact Group.”

The emir of Qatar sent weapons and ground troops to the NATO “rebels,” especially during the Battle of Tripoli. In exchange, the National Transitional Council awarded the emir exclusive contracts to control much of Libya’s future oil trade.

It is too early to say whether the resignation of Wadah Khanfar heralds Al-Jazeera’s desire to recover the credibility that took 15 years to build and only 6 months to lose.

I mentioned that Israel Today article, which says that thousands of Arab Islamists and Al Qaeda-types have sent requests to Israeli government agencies, hoping to work for Mossad or the Israeli military.

How can this be?

The West and Israel support the same “Islamists” that the West and Israel claim to oppose, since the Islamists want to overthrow governments that stand in the way of Jews and bankers.

Islamists don’t care about Jews and bankers. They just want money and power for themselves, and they will work for anyone who gives it to them, including Jews and bankers. The West paid them to fight the Soviets, and now pays them to fight Gaddafi and Assad.

Osama bin Laden was one of these Islamist whores. Beginning in 1986 he helped the West train Libyan terrorists in the Salman al-Farisi camp in Pakistan for action against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

After the USSR fell, the CIA flew Osama bin Laden and his Libyan jihadists to Sudan, to fight against the anti-US government there. In 1994, still working for the USA, Osama sent some of his Libyan assassins back to Libya to kill Gaddafy, and reverse the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The assassins failed, despite being helped by England’s MI6, and they tried three more times. In 1996 when Sudan’s government closed in on Bin Laden, the CIA flew him and his group back to Afghanistan.

Gaddafy despised these killers, and foolishly believed that the West was serious about fighting them, when in the fact the West was paying them to kill him. Gaddafy joined the “war on terror” against Al Qaeda, not realizing that “Al Qaeda” is a hotbed of Western-paid mercenaries in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Iraq, and now Libya, Syria and Yemen.

In 1998 Gaddafy asked Interpol to issue an arrest warrant against Osama bin Laden, but Osama had U.S. protection (and continued to have it up to the day of his death).

On 8 December 2004, the U.S. State Department put the Osama bin Laden’s “Libyan Islamic Fighter Group” (LIFG) on its list of terrorist organizations, even though the USA was paying this group. It is still on the USA’s terrorist list today, and is still on the USA payroll. On 7 Feb 2006 the United Nations adopted sanctions against five members of the LIFG and the four companies linked to them, but they continue to operate unfettered in England under MI6 protection.

Islamist mercenaries also include the Muslim Brotherhood. If the West wants regime change, then it pays Islamist mercenaries to bring it about. If the West has a puppet dictator, and opposes regime change, then it attacks Islamists as part of the “war on terror.” For example, when the West had Mubarak, it vilified the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Now the West has a puppet military junta, and is paying the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow Assad in Syria.

The Muslim Brotherhood controls the “Syrian National Transitional Council” in Turkey, which wants NATO to bomb Syria so this group can be the equivalent of the NTC in Libya.

In the meantime, the Muslim Brotherhood conducts terrorist acts inside Syria, killing thousands. The Western media blames Syria’s government for this violence, and the stupid Western masses angrily defend the lies.

The Muslim Brotherhod wants to impose Sharia law, which Jews and the West claim to oppose, but actually support as a means to control the Arab masses. It is the Israeli / Islamist / Western dream to make every Arab nation like the brutal Gulf emirates that are allied with Israel and the West (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

Islamists say Sharia is about “moral values,” but morality is a mask for their immorality. Islam and Sharia are camouflage for their attempts to get power over their fellow Arabs. (Christian fundamentalists use religion and “morality” for the same selfish reason…to get power.)

So don’t mourn Osama bin Laden. He didn’t like Western occupation of Muslim nations, but he was always a CIA asset, and a soldier in the bankers’ global war on the masses. The USA called him the world’s biggest terrorist, and blamed him for Mossad’s 9-11 attack, but protected him until he died in December 2001.

Indeed the FBI never put him on its most wanted list until after the fake “second death” of Osama on 2 May 2011, at which time Osama was listed as “deceased.”

A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties
by Oded Yinon (with a foreword by, and translated by Israel Shahak)

Foreword
The following essay represents, in my opinion, the accurate and detailed plan of the present Zionist regime (of Sharon and Eitan) for the Middle East which is based on the division of the whole area into small states, and the dissolution of all the existing Arab states. I will comment on the military aspect of this plan in a concluding note. Here I want to draw the attention of the readers to several important points:

1. The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down, by Israel, into small units, occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking. For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent of Ha’aretz (and probably the most knowledgeable in Israel, on this topic) writes about the “best” that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: “The dissolution of Iraq into a Shi’ite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part” (Ha’aretz 6/2/1982). Actually, this aspect of the plan is very old.

Israel has two major routes through which to realize this purpose, one direct and the other indirect. The direct option is the less realistic one because of the nature of the regime and government in Israel as well as the wisdom of Sadat who obtained our withdrawal from Sinai, which was, next to the war of 1973, his major achievement since he took power. Israel will not unilaterally break the treaty, neither today, nor in 1982, unless it is very hard pressed economically and politically and Egypt provides Israel with the excuse to take the Sinai back into our hands for the fourth time in our short history. What is left therefore, is the indirect option. The economic situation in Egypt, the nature of the regime and its pan-Arab policy, will bring about a situation after April 1982 in which Israel will be forced to act directly or indirectly in order to regain control over Sinai as a strategic, economic and energy reserve for the long run. Egypt does not constitute a military strategic problem due to its internal conflicts and it could be driven back to the post 1967 war situation in no more than one day.11

The myth of Egypt as the strong leader of the Arab World was demolished back in 1956 and definitely did not survive 1967, but our policy, as in the return of the Sinai, served to turn the myth into “fact.” In reality, however, Egypt’s power in proportion both to Israel alone and to the rest of the Arab World has gone down about 50 percent since 1967. Egypt is no longer the leading political power in the Arab World and is economically on the verge of a crisis. Without foreign assistance the crisis will come tomorrow.12 In the short run, due to the return of the Sinai, Egypt will gain several advantages at our expense, but only in the short run until 1982, and that will not change the balance of power to its benefit, and will possibly bring about its downfall. Egypt, in its present domestic political picture, is already a corpse, all the more so if we take into account the growing Moslem-Christian rift. Breaking Egypt down territorially into distinct geographical regions is the political aim of Israel in the Nineteen Eighties on its Western front.

Egypt is divided and torn apart into many foci of authority. If Egypt falls apart, countries like Libya, Sudan or even the more distant states will not continue to exist in their present form and will join the downfall and dissolution of Egypt. The vision of a Christian Coptic State in Upper Egypt alongside a number of weak states with very localized power and without a centralized government as to date, is the key to a historical development which was only set back by the peace agreement but which seems inevitable in the long run.13

The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.14

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.15

The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.16

Jordan constitutes an immediate strategic target in the short run but not in the long run, for it does not constitute a real threat in the long run after its dissolution, the termination of the lengthy rule of King Hussein and the transfer of power to the Palestinians in the short run.

There is no chance that Jordan will continue to exist in its present structure for a long time, and Israel’s policy, both in war and in peace, ought to be directed at the liquidation of Jordan under the present regime and the transfer of power to the Palestinian majority. Changing the regime east of the river will also cause the termination of the problem of the territories densely populated with Arabs west of the Jordan. Whether in war or under conditions of peace, emigrationfrom the territories and economic demographic freeze in them, are the guarantees for the coming change on both banks of the river, and we ought to be active in order to accelerate this process in the nearest future. The autonomy plan ought also to be rejected, as well as any compromise or division of the territories for, given the plans of the PLO and those of the Israeli Arabs themselves, the Shefa’amr plan of September 1980, it is not possible to go on living in this country in the present situation without separating the two nations, the Arabs to Jordan and the Jews to the areas west of the river. Genuine coexistence and peace will reign over the land only when the Arabs understand that without Jewish rule between the Jordan and the sea they will have neither existence nor security. A nation of their own and security will be theirs only in Jordan.17

Within Israel the distinction between the areas of ’67 and the territories beyond them, those of ’48, has always been meaningless for Arabs and nowadays no longer has any significance for us. The problem should be seen in its entirety without any divisions as of ’67. It should be clear, under any future political situation or mifitary constellation, that the solution of the problem of the indigenous Arabs will come only when they recognize the existence of Israel in secure borders up to the Jordan river and beyond it, as our existential need in this difficult epoch, the nuclear epoch which we shall soon enter. It is no longer possible to live with three fourths of the Jewish population on the dense shoreline which is so dangerous in a nuclear epoch.

Dispersal of the population is therefore a domestic strategic aim of the highest order; otherwise, we shall cease to exist within any borders. Judea, Samaria and the Galilee are our sole guarantee for national existence, and if we do not become the majority in the mountain areas, we shall not rule in the country and we shall be like the Crusaders, who lost this country which was not theirs anyhow, and in which they were foreigners to begin with. Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today. Taking hold of the mountain watershed from Beersheba to the Upper Galilee is the national aim generated by the major strategic consideration which is settling the mountainous part of the country that is empty of Jews today.l8

Realizing our aims on the Eastern front depends first on the realization of this internal strategic objective. The transformation of the political and economic structure, so as to enable the realization of these strategic aims, is the key to achieving the entire change. We need to change from a centralized economy in which the government is extensively involved, to an open and free market as well as to switch from depending upon the U.S. taxpayer to developing, with our own hands, of a genuine productive economic infrastructure. If we are not able to make this change freely and voluntarily, we shall be forced into it by world developments, especially in the areas of economics, energy, and politics, and by our own growing isolation.l9

From a military and strategic point of view, the West led by the U.S. is unable to withstand the global pressures of the USSR throughout the world, and Israel must therefore stand alone in the Eighties, without any foreign assistance, military or economic, and this is within our capacities today, with no compromises.20 Rapid changes in the world will also bring about a change in the condition of world Jewry to which Israel will become not only a last resort but the only existential option. We cannot assume that U.S. Jews, and the communities of Europe and Latin America will continue to exist in the present form in the future.21

Our existence in this country itself is certain, and there is no force that could remove us from here either forcefully or by treachery (Sadat’s method). Despite the difficulties of the mistaken “peace” policy and the problem of the Israeli Arabs and those of the territories, we can effectively deal with these problems in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion
Three important points have to be clarified in order to be able to understand the significant possibilities of realization of this Zionist plan for the Middle East, and also why it had to be published.

The Military Background of The Plan

The military conditions of this plan have not been mentioned above, but on the many occasions where something very like it is being “explained” in closed meetings to members of the Israeli Establishment, this point is clarified. It is assumed that the Israeli military forces, in all their branches, are insufficient for the actual work of occupation of such wide territories as discussed above. In fact, even in times of intense Palestinian “unrest” on the West Bank, the forces of the Israeli Army are stretched out too much. The answer to that is the method of ruling by means of “Haddad forces” or of “Village Associations” (also known as “Village Leagues”): local forces under “leaders” completely dissociated from the population, not having even any feudal or party structure (such as the Phalangists have, for example). The “states” proposed by Yinon are “Haddadland” and “Village Associations,” and their armed forces will be, no doubt, quite similar. In addition, Israeli military superiority in such a situation will be much greater than it is even now, so that any movement of revolt will be “punished” either by mass humiliation as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, or by bombardment and obliteration of cities, as in Lebanon now (June 1982), or by both. In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all Lebanon.

It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen.

Why it is necessary to publish this in Israel?

The reason for publication is the dual nature of the Israeli-Jewish society: A very great measure of freedom and democracy, specially for Jews, combined with expansionism and racist discrimination. In such a situation the Israeli-Jewish elite (for the masses follow the TV and Begin’s speeches) has to be persuaded. The first steps in the process of persuasion are oral, as indicated above, but a time comes in which it becomes inconvenient. Written material must be produced for the benefit of the more stupid “persuaders” and “explainers” (for example medium-rank officers, who are, usually, remarkably stupid). They then “learn it,” more or less, and preach to others. It should be remarked that Israel, and even the Yishuv from the Twenties, has always functioned in this way. I myself well remember how (before I was “in opposition”) the necessity of war with was explained to me and others a year before the 1956 war, and the necessity of conquering “the rest of Western Palestine when we will have the opportunity” was explained in the years 1965-67.

Why is it assumed that there is no special risk from the outside in the publication of such plans?

Such risks can come from two sources, so long as the principled opposition inside Israel is very weak (a situation which may change as a consequence of the war on Lebanon) : The Arab World, including the Palestinians, and the United States. The Arab World has shown itself so far quite incapable of a detailed and rational analysis of Israeli-Jewish society, and the Palestinians have been, on the average, no better than the rest. In such a situation, even those who are shouting about the dangers of Israeli expansionism (which are real enough) are doing this not because of factual and detailed knowledge, but because of belief in myth. A good example is the very persistent belief in the non-existent writing on the wall of the Knesset of the Biblical verse about the Nile and the Euphrates. Another example is the persistent, and completely false declarations, which were made by some of the most important Arab leaders, that the two blue stripes of the Israeli flag symbolize the Nile and the Euphrates, while in fact they are taken from the stripes of the Jewish praying shawl (Talit). The Israeli specialists assume that, on the whole, the Arabs will pay no attention to their serious discussions of the future, and the Lebanon war has proved them right. So why should they not continue with their old methods of persuading other Israelis?

In the United States a very similar situation exists, at least until now. The more or less serious commentators take their information about Israel, and much of their opinions about it, from two sources. The first is from articles in the “liberal” American press, written almost totally by Jewish admirers of Israel who, even if they are critical of some aspects of the Israeli state, practice loyally what Stalin used to call “the constructive criticism.” (In fact those among them who claim also to be “Anti-Stalinist” are in reality more Stalinist than Stalin, with Israel being their god which has not yet failed). In the framework of such critical worship it must be assumed that Israel has always “good intentions” and only “makes mistakes,” and therefore such a plan would not be a matter for discussion–exactly as the Biblical genocides committed by Jews are not mentioned. The other source of information, The Jerusalem Post, has similar policies. So long, therefore, as the situation exists in which Israel is really a “closed society” to the rest of the world, because the world wants to close its eyes, the publication and even the beginning of the realization of such a plan is realistic and feasible.

Israel Shahak
June 17, 1982
Jerusalem
About the Translator
Israel Shahak is a professor of organic chemistly at Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the chairman of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights. He published The Shahak Papers, collections of key articles from the Hebrew press, and is the author of numerous articles and books, among them Non-Jew in the Jewish State. His latest book is Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression, published by the AAUG in 1982. Israel Shahak: (1933-2001)

Notes
1. American Universities Field Staff. Report No.33, 1979. According to this research, the population of the world will be 6 billion in the year 2000. Today’s world population can be broken down as follows: China, 958 million; India, 635 million; USSR, 261 million; U.S., 218 million Indonesia, 140 million; Brazil and Japan, 110 million each. According to the figures of the U.N. Population Fund for 1980, there will be, in 2000, 50 cities with a population of over 5 million each. The population ofthp;Third World will then be 80% of the world population. According to Justin Blackwelder, U.S. Census Office chief, the world population will not reach 6 billion because of hunger.

2. Soviet nuclear policy has been well summarized by two American Sovietologists: Joseph D. Douglas and Amoretta M. Hoeber, Soviet Strategy for Nuclear War, (Stanford, Ca., Hoover Inst. Press, 1979). In the Soviet Union tens and hundreds of articles and books are published each year which detail the Soviet doctrine for nuclear war and there is a great deal of documentation translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force,including USAF: Marxism-Leninism on War and the Army: The Soviet View, Moscow, 1972; USAF: The Armed Forces of the Soviet State. Moscow, 1975, by Marshal A. Grechko. The basic Soviet approach to the matter is presented in the book by Marshal Sokolovski published in 1962 in Moscow: Marshal V. D. Sokolovski, Military Strategy, Soviet Doctrine and Concepts(New York, Praeger, 1963).

3. A picture of Soviet intentions in various areas of the world can be drawn from the book by Douglas and Hoeber, ibid. For additional material see: Michael Morgan, “USSR’s Minerals as Strategic Weapon in the Future,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1979.

4. Admiral of the Fleet Sergei Gorshkov, Sea Power and the State, London, 1979. Morgan, loc. cit. General George S. Brown (USAF) C-JCS, Statement to the Congress on the Defense Posture of the United States For Fiscal Year 1979, p. 103; National Security Council, Review of Non-Fuel Mineral Policy, (Washington, D.C. 1979,); Drew Middleton, The New York Times, (9/15/79); Time, 9/21/80.

6. Al-Thawra, Syria 12/20/79, Al-Ahram,12/30/79, Al Ba’ath, Syria, 5/6/79. 55% of the Arabs are 20 years old and younger, 70% of the Arabs live in Africa, 55% of the Arabs under 15 are unemployed, 33% live in urban areas, Oded Yinon, “Egypt’s Population Problem,” The Jerusalem Quarterly, No. 15, Spring 1980.

8. In his book, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said that the Israeli government is in fact responsible for the design of American policy in the Middle East, after June ’67, because of its own indecisiveness as to the future of the territories and the inconsistency in its positions since it established the background for Resolution 242 and certainly twelve years later for the Camp David agreements and the peace treaty with Egypt. According to Rabin, on June 19, 1967, President Johnson sent a letter to Prime Minister Eshkol in which he did not mention anything about withdrawal from the new territories but exactly on the same day the government resolved to return territories in exchange for peace. After the Arab resolutions in Khartoum (9/1/67) the government altered its position but contrary to its decision of June 19, did not notify the U.S. of the alteration and the U.S. continued to support 242 in the Security Council on the basis of its earlier understanding that Israel is prepared to return territories. At that point it was already too late to change the U.S. position and Israel’s policy. From here the way was opened to peace agreements on the basis of 242 as was later agreed upon in Camp David. See Yitzhak Rabin. Pinkas Sherut, (Ma’ariv 1979) pp. 226-227.

9. Foreign and Defense Committee Chairman Prof. Moshe Arens argued in an interview (Ma ‘ariv,10/3/80) that the Israeli government failed to prepare an economic plan before the Camp David agreements and was itself surprised by the cost of the agreements, although already during the negotiations it was possible to calculate the heavy price and the serious error involved in not having prepared the economic grounds for peace.

The former Minister of Treasury, Mr. Yigal Holwitz, stated that if it were not for the withdrawal from the oil fields, Israel would have a positive balance of payments (9/17/80). That same person said two years earlier that the government of Israel (from which he withdrew) had placed a noose around his neck. He was referring to the Camp David agreements (Ha’aretz, 11/3/78). In the course of the whole peace negotiations neither an expert nor an economics advisor was consulted, and the Prime Minister himself, who lacks knowledge and expertise in economics, in a mistaken initiative, asked the U.S. to give us a loan rather than a grant, due to his wish to maintain our respect and the respect of the U.S. towards us. See Ha’aretz1/5/79. Jerusalem Post, 9/7/79. Prof Asaf Razin, formerly a senior consultant in the Treasury, strongly criticized the conduct of the negotiations; Ha’aretz, 5/5/79. Ma’ariv, 9/7/79. As to matters concerning the oil fields and Israel’s energy crisis, see the interview with Mr. Eitan Eisenberg, a government advisor on these matters, Ma’arive Weekly, 12/12/78. The Energy Minister, who personally signed the Camp David agreements and the evacuation of Sdeh Alma, has since emphasized the seriousness of our condition from the point of view of oil supplies more than once…see Yediot Ahronot, 7/20/79. Energy Minister Modai even admitted that the government did not consult him at all on the subject of oil during the Camp David and Blair House negotiations. Ha’aretz, 8/22/79.

10. Many sources report on the growth of the armaments budget in Egypt and on intentions to give the army preference in a peace epoch budget over domestic needs for which a peace was allegedly obtained. See former Prime Minister Mamduh Salam in an interview 12/18/77, Treasury Minister Abd El Sayeh in an interview 7/25/78, and the paper Al Akhbar, 12/2/78 which clearly stressed that the military budget will receive first priority, despite the peace. This is what former Prime Minister Mustafa Khalil has stated in his cabinet’s programmatic document which was presented to Parliament, 11/25/78. See English translation, ICA, FBIS, Nov. 27. 1978, pp. D 1-10. According to these sources, Egypt’s military budget increased by 10% between fiscal 1977 and 1978, and the process still goes on. A Saudi source divulged that the Egyptians plan to increase their militmy budget by 100% in the next two years; Ha’aretz, 2/12/79 and Jerusalem Post, 1/14/79.

11. Most of the economic estimates threw doubt on Egypt’s ability to reconstruct its economy by 1982. See Economic Intelligence Unit, 1978 Supplement, “The Arab Republic of Egypt”; E. Kanovsky, “Recent Economic Developments in the Middle East,” Occasional Papers, The Shiloah Institution, June 1977; Kanovsky, “The Egyptian Economy Since the Mid-Sixties, The Micro Sectors,” Occasional Papers, June 1978; Robert McNamara, President of World Bank, as reported in Times, London, 1/24/78.

12. See the comparison made by the researeh of the Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and research camed out in the Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University, as well as the research by the British scientist, Denis Champlin, Military Review, Nov. 1979, ISS: The Military Balance 1979-1980, CSS; Security Arrangements in Sinai…by Brig. Gen. (Res.) A Shalev, No. 3.0 CSS; The Military Balance and the Military Options after the Peace Treaty with Egypt, by Brig. Gen. (Res.) Y. Raviv, No.4, Dec. 1978, as well as many press reports including El Hawadeth, London, 3/7/80; El Watan El Arabi, Paris, 12/14/79.

13. As for religious ferment in Egypt and the relations between Copts and Moslems see the series of articles published in the Kuwaiti paper, El Qabas, 9/15/80. The English author Irene Beeson reports on the rift between Moslems and Copts, see: Irene Beeson, Guardian, London, 6/24/80, and Desmond Stewart, Middle East Internmational, London 6/6/80. For other reports see Pamela Ann Smith, Guardian, London, 12/24/79; The Christian Science Monitor 12/27/79 as well as Al Dustour, London, 10/15/79; El Kefah El Arabi, 10/15/79.

21. According to figures published by Ya’akov Karoz, Yediot Ahronot, 10/17/80, the sum total of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in the world in 1979 was double the amount recorded in 1978. In Germany, France, and Britain the number of anti-Semitic incidents was many times greater in that year. In the U.S. as well there has been a sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents which were reported in that article. For the new anti-Semitism, see L. Talmon, “The New Anti-Semitism,” The New Republic, 9/18/1976; Barbara Tuchman, “They poisoned the Wells,” Newsweek 2/3/75.

Very well written article. It also needs to be noted that al-Jazeera (owned by the oppressive Qatari absolute monarchy) really got too much cred for two simple things: 1) airing portions of the CIA asset Osama bin Laden’s alleged videos and 2) opposing and showing stuff against the imperialist US invasion of Iraq under Bush in 2003. First on the bin Laden videos much has been written showing bin Laden was a CIA puppet who died under US care in 2001 or early 2002 from kidney failure (see from US gov insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik for one). Then as for what I think is al-Jazeera’s main claim to fame and what its supporters try to use as “cred” for al-Jazeera, opposition to the Iraq war. All that needs to be said on this is that it took very little courage, outside the US itself, to oppose the US imperialist invasion of Iraq under Bush back in 2003. Pretty much the entire world opposed the US imperialist invasion of Iraq, outside of the US (and maybe the Zionist entity, as they saw Saddam as one of their old enemies). For example Europe saw some of its largest protests and rallies in recorded history, in the form of massive anti-war rallies opposing the US invasion of Iraq back then in 2003. Even US puppet dictators like say Hosni Mubarak and the Saudi monarchy opposed the Iraq war! Hosni Mubarak of Egypt was even quoted as saying that Bush and the neocons were creating “100 more bin Laden’s” by invading Iraq. The Saudi monarchy, another US puppet dictatorship, also came out strongly against the US invasion of Iraq. And even in the US itself, although a majority of the US population was brainwashed and tricked into following the imperialist invasion of Iraq, a brave minority did stand up and oppose the Iraq war from the start (from back in 2003 itself). In many ways I believe (and so do others) that George W. Bush, with support from his neo-con Zionist buddies, really invaded Iraq as a former of father-son rivalry so W could show his daddy he was better than him and “finish” what daddy didn’t back in 1991. So al-Jazeera, owned by the Qatari monarchy, saying stuff about the Iraq war was no big apples and should not give them “cred” that will gloss over the fact that they are US puppets now: see the CIA agent Wadah Khanfar being their director until wikileaks outed him and a member of the Qatari royal family itself took the reins at al-Jazeera!

Also I forgot to mention that on the Iraq war some of the absolute hypocrisy of the absolute monarchy of Qatar (under King Hamad ibn Khalifa al-Thani, a friend and ally of the Zionists and the Americans as well) is that many of the imperialist US planes that flew attack missions in Iraq (killing Iraqi civilians) came out of the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar!!! That’s right the Al Udeid Air Base is a massive military base on the outskirts of the Qatari capitol Doha, that houses tons and tons of US and British air force equipment and personnel. It is also believed that US drones stationed at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar regularly are the drones the US military flies around bombing things in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan (i.e. illegal drone bombings where the imperialist US military massacres civilians). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base